Questions of Truth and Quantum Theory (Religion)

by dhw, Thursday, March 05, 2009, 10:36 (5740 days ago) @ David Turell

George quoted Tony Hewish: "When the most elementary physical things behave this way, we should be prepared to accept religious mysteries such as the existence of God..." - Mark interpreted the Hewish quote as meaning that Christian faith should not be dismissed just because it is mysterious and contrary to common sense, "for the physical world at its most fundamental level is so mysterious and counter-intuitive that, despite our ability to mathematically model it, it defies understanding." - George had written that Hewish's comment justified belief in "absolutely anything", and I wrote that the comment in fact favoured atheism, because if incomprehensibility justified belief, it would be simpler to believe in the creative powers of physical matter itself than in God. Why have two mysteries instead of one? - David has responded: "But we do understand the quantum world. dhw has twisted Mark's meaning of the word 'understanding'. Our math formulas follow quantum mechanics beautifully." - As you say, Mark will defend his own viewpoint, but let me clarify mine. You argue that "particles are organized in symmetrical patterns as if a designer took charge." There is a perfectly logical link between the concept of design and the concept of a designer, but that ... unless I have misunderstood both Hewish and Mark ... is not Hewish's point at all. Mark understood why George found the comment "frustrating", and to explain it he has emphasized not the clarity of maths formulas that "follow quantum mechanics beautifully" but the mystery of the physical world. I don't think I have twisted the meaning of "the physical world...is so mysterious...that it defies understanding". The argument seems to be (but I stand open to correction) that if you can accept the incomprehensibility of the physical world, you can accept the incomprehensibility of God, and of God becoming incarnate. My response, let me repeat, is: in that case, you can accept the incomprehensible power of physical matter to organize itself without an incomprehensible God. Both hypotheses stretch the bounds of credibility, and I see no difference in the degree of faith required, but faith in physical matter at least removes all the awkward questions like how did God get here, and what is his nature? That is why I see the Hewish comment as a bolster to atheism, though as our discussions and the rest of Mark's post have made clear, there are plenty of other points to ponder.